Vikings Message Board.Com

There's also this thing called special teams..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reminds me of Frazier's "Stop the run, run the ball" focus. And how Frazier knows what he's doing. And it doesn't mean it'll be detrimental to the team at all.

At least Norv and Zimmer have a better track record. If there's a spot that needs some more depth, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't ditch a second full back to fill it at that point.

Interesting that Toby got brought up in this thread. Apart from reaching a bit for him in the draft, I never saw any single compelling reason to be upset about having him on the team. He was a very worthy backup to the league's best RB. Had we overpaid for him to be our backup RB once his contract expired, then THAT would have been a misallocation of resources/ mismanagement. Of all the things that concern me about this team as we head into Zimmer's first year as HC, Zach Line's presence on the team is simply not one of them.

Texas Vike wrote:Interesting that Toby got brought up in this thread. Apart from reaching a bit for him in the draft, I never saw any single compelling reason to be upset about having him on the team. He was a very worthy backup to the league's best RB. Had we overpaid for him to be our backup RB once his contract expired, then THAT would have been a misallocation of resources/ mismanagement. Of all the things that concern me about this team as we head into Zimmer's first year as HC, Zach Line's presence on the team is simply not one of them.

You think getting a serviceable backup RB is worth a trade up in the 2nd?

Mothman wrote: The defending Super Bowl champions used a fullback last year and they're using one this year too. I guess they don't agree that keeping a player like that on the roster is mismanagement and resource misallocation.

FB is still a viable position in the NFL. There's ample evidence to support it.

Maybe we're arguing a matter of degrees here.

Lots of teams still field fullbacks and run the ball successfully. I agree with that, and I agree there is a place for it in the modern pro offense.

Lots of teams that do this *don't* invest multiple roster spots in fullbacks and non-OL players whose primary skill is blocking.

VikingLord wrote: You think getting a serviceable backup RB is worth a trade up in the 2nd?

I think the outrage Toby's performance provoked in these parts was really myopic, just as whining about Zach Line is.

CP84 sprung that long run, which opened up the game for us today, because of Felton's block. That play illustrates the importance of a FB to this team's scheme. I'm done arguing about something of such little importance.

Mothman wrote:

No offense, but i'd need to see supporting evidence for that claim in order to believe it. I think most NFL teams have at least two players that fit that description.

Anyway, I think the consternation over keeping Line is a tempest in a teapot, especially because we don't know how he fits into the coaching staff's plans. I certainly don't see it as a clear misallocation of resources, as mismanagement, as an indication that the Vikings won't be running a modern offense, etc. They kept a backup at a position it sounds like they intend to use. That's sound thinking as far as I'm concerned. Why go one deep at any position other than a specialized position like kicker or punter?

Mothman wrote:No offense, but i'd need to see supporting evidence for that claim in order to believe it. I think most NFL teams have at least two players that fit that description.

"In college, no one has them anymore. They don’t have any fullbacks in college football,” Zimmer said. “So typically you’re taking a tight end — if they have those. There’s hardly any blocking tight ends anymore. So you’re taking them and making them fullbacks or taking linebackers and making them fullbacks. When you find one, if you have a fullback offense, you keep them." - Mike Zimmer

If the Vikings head coach admits this, and he wants to run this style of offense, I'll submit that as my evidence.

Mothman wrote:Anyway, I think the consternation over keeping Line is a tempest in a teapot, especially because we don't know how he fits into the coaching staff's plans. I certainly don't see it as a clear misallocation of resources, as mismanagement, as an indication that the Vikings won't be running a modern offense, etc. They kept a backup at a position it sounds like they intend to use. That's sound thinking as far as I'm concerned. Why go one deep at any position other than a specialized position like kicker or punter?

When I first responded to this I read the quote to mean Zimmer and Turner want to run what Zimmer called a "fullback offense", and fair or not, that caused that nervous tic I developed watching Childress and his pre-Favre offense chug up and down the field like the Little Train That Couldn't. But then I thought maybe Zimmer and Turner are just playing the hand they've been dealt and trying to maximize it, and in that context I understand. They've got Matt Cassel at QB, a rookie behind him, and Ponder behind that. Their offensive line blocks better than it pass protects. They have AD in the backfield and some depth at RB. It makes sense to try to maximize that this year.

The win feels good, but they still ran for more yards than they passed, still made a token number of throws in the mid and deep ranges of the field, and quite honestly, still resembled what we saw last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, on offense. This style of offense isn't going to keep them in games where the defense falters. Maybe that won't happen this year, and if so, they'll be in every game, but I'm far from sold that is a certainty after one game against a Rams team that was crippled at QB.

VikingLord wrote: If the Vikings head coach admits this, and he wants to run this style of offense, I'll submit that as my evidence.

He's talking about college football, not pro football. That statement is far from convincing evidence that most NFL teams don't carry more than one non-OL player whose primary skill is blocking. As I said, I think most of them do.

When I first responded to this I read the quote to mean Zimmer and Turner want to run what Zimmer called a "fullback offense", and fair or not, that caused that nervous tic I developed watching Childress and his pre-Favre offense chug up and down the field like the Little Train That Couldn't. But then I thought maybe Zimmer and Turner are just playing the hand they've been dealt and trying to maximize it, and in that context I understand. They've got Matt Cassel at QB, a rookie behind him, and Ponder behind that. Their offensive line blocks better than it pass protects. They have AD in the backfield and some depth at RB. It makes sense to try to maximize that this year.

The win feels good, but they still ran for more yards than they passed, still made a token number of throws in the mid and deep ranges of the field, and quite honestly, still resembled what we saw last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, on offense. This style of offense isn't going to keep them in games where the defense falters. Maybe that won't happen this year, and if so, they'll be in every game, but I'm far from sold that is a certainty after one game against a Rams team that was crippled at QB.

If that style of offense won't keep them in games where the defense falters, maybe that's not the style of offense they'll use in those games. However, as you wrote above, it makes sense to play to the strengths of the roster.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but it seems like the bottom line to all of this is that you really want to see an offense that emphasizes the pass over the run and to you, keeping Line runs counter to that philosophy. If I have that right, as long as they win, why does it even matter? What difference does it make if they run for more yardage than they gain through the air or if Patterson has 102 yards on 3 runs instead of 3 passes? It's still 102 yards.

VikingLord wrote:The win feels good, but they still ran for more yards than they passed, still made a token number of throws in the mid and deep ranges of the field, and quite honestly, still resembled what we saw last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, on offense. This style of offense isn't going to keep them in games where the defense falters. Maybe that won't happen this year, and if so, they'll be in every game, but I'm far from sold that is a certainty after one game against a Rams team that was crippled at QB.

Given the lead and the Rams' pass rush, the game plan dictated a more run-heavy approach, especially during the last quarter. Given the outcome, the game plan was still pretty balanced with 30 rushing attempts to 25 passing attempts. I wouldn't worry about one game (one where the Vikings destroyed their opponent). While I'm sure the Vikings would continue to love to lean on their running game like this, their upcoming schedule leads one to believe Cassel may have just hit his low in passing attempts for the next six weeks.

dead_poet wrote: Given the lead and the Rams' pass rush, the game plan dictated a more run-heavy approach, especially during the last quarter. Given the outcome, the game plan was still pretty balanced with 30 rushing attempts to 25 passing attempts. I wouldn't worry about one game (one where the Vikings destroyed their opponent). While I'm sure the Vikings would continue to love to lean on their running game like this, their upcoming schedule leads one to believe Cassel may have just hit his low in passing attempts for the next six weeks.

That makes a lot of sense, DP: emphasis on a running strength against a running weakness (relatively speaking). Maybe not as exciting, particularly since AD wasn't being patient enough for some of the holes to hope, but effective none the less.

Mothman wrote: He's talking about college football, not pro football. That statement is far from convincing evidence that most NFL teams don't carry more than one non-OL player whose primary skill is blocking. As I said, I think most of them do.

Well, it's what the Vikings coach observed, so I'll have to let that speak for itself. That, and the principle of supply and demand.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but it seems like the bottom line to all of this is that you really want to see an offense that emphasizes the pass over the run and to you, keeping Line runs counter to that philosophy. If I have that right, as long as they win, why does it even matter? What difference does it make if they run for more yardage than they gain through the air or if Patterson has 102 yards on 3 runs instead of 3 passes? It's still 102 yards.

I want to see the Vikings go with the modern flow, a flow which has been in place now for a pretty long time and has established itself. I don't view it as "emphasizing the pass over the run" per se. I view it as "forcing the defense to defend the maximum width and depth of the field that one possibly can by credibly threatening all areas on every snap". The net result of being able to do this consistently gives the offense wide latitude over the particular types of plays it can run and, as you note, does allow them to run quite a bit and do it successfully (and even without overpaying a star RB to do it, too!). But since running by it's nature doesn't allow that, it becomes a complementary part of the offensive attack rather than a primary part of it. And I think Zimmer's observations as to what college programs are producing in terms of player talent, what salaries RB's are getting in the FA market, along with observations regarding what teams have been successful in the NFL over the last decade or so, lends a lot of credence to the theory that "fullback offenses", which I consider to be offenses predicated around running first, are outmoded and outdated and doomed to failure in a league where fast-strike offenses can pile on points in a hurry. Those types of offenses have been consistently exposed as deficient against opposing teams that can score in a hurry. The Vikes can keep bucking this trend, or admit that they need to be able to do this too and start allocating resources and making personnel decisions that move them in that direction.

VikingLord wrote: Well, it's what the Vikings coach observed, so I'll have to let that speak for itself. That, and the principle of supply and demand.
I want to see the Vikings go with the modern flow, a flow which has been in place now for a pretty long time and has established itself. I don't view it as "emphasizing the pass over the run" per se. I view it as "forcing the defense to defend the maximum width and depth of the field that one possibly can by credibly threatening all areas on every snap". The net result of being able to do this consistently gives the offense wide latitude over the particular types of plays it can run and, as you note, does allow them to run quite a bit and do it successfully (and even without overpaying a star RB to do it, too!). But since running by it's nature doesn't allow that, it becomes a complementary part of the offensive attack rather than a primary part of it. And I think Zimmer's observations as to what college programs are producing in terms of player talent, what salaries RB's are getting in the FA market, along with observations regarding what teams have been successful in the NFL over the last decade or so, lends a lot of credence to the theory that "fullback offenses", which I consider to be offenses predicated around running first, are outmoded and outdated and doomed to failure in a league where fast-strike offenses can pile on points in a hurry. Those types of offenses have been consistently exposed as deficient against opposing teams that can score in a hurry. The Vikes can keep bucking this trend, or admit that they need to be able to do this too and start allocating resources and making personnel decisions that move them in that direction.

My quick reaction?
I think it behooves a team to be able to both: a) score points in a hurry if they need to, as you point out AND (just as important, if not more) b) be able to control the clock with a strong run game.

Versatility is the key, and I hope that is what they shoot for. I want the swiss army knife of Offensive philosophies.

VikingLord wrote:I view it as "forcing the defense to defend the maximum width and depth of the field that one possibly can by credibly threatening all areas on every snap".

Seems like a fancy way of saying passing game (running backs rarely run intermediate/deep routes).

But since running by it's nature doesn't allow that, it becomes a complementary part of the offensive attack rather than a primary part of it.

So teams should be pass-first or only pass-first teams can be successful.

And I think Zimmer's observations as to what college programs are producing in terms of player talent, what salaries RB's are getting in the FA market, along with observations regarding what teams have been successful in the NFL over the last decade or so, lends a lot of credence to the theory that "fullback offenses", which I consider to be offenses predicated around running first, are outmoded and outdated and doomed to failure in a league where fast-strike offenses can pile on points in a hurry.

Since 2006, I think only the Saints and Packers would qualify as "fast-strike" offenses. YMMV.

Those types of offenses have been consistently exposed as deficient against opposing teams that can score in a hurry. The Vikes can keep bucking this trend, or admit that they need to be able to do this too and start allocating resources and making personnel decisions that move them in that direction.

Resources like signing a first-round WR in 2009, a second-round TE in 2011 (which was just re-signed), a first-round WR in 2013, a first-round QB in 2014, a potential Hall of Fame WR in free agency in 2013, a pair of fourth-round WRs in 2012, a speedy former second-rounder in free agency (Simpson) in 2012, a first-round blindside tackle in 2012 and a noted vertically-minded offensive coordinator in 2013?

They're allocating plenty of resources to the passing game. Allocating resources to other positions doesn't mean they're neglecting the passing game.

VikingLord wrote:Well, it's what the Vikings coach observed, so I'll have to let that speak for itself. That, and the principle of supply and demand.

What he said does speak for itself... about college football and the type of players it's producing. Here's the quote again, just to reinforce my point:

"In college, no one has them anymore. They don’t have any fullbacks in college football,” Zimmer said. “So typically you’re taking a tight end — if they have those. There’s hardly any blocking tight ends anymore. So you’re taking them and making them fullbacks or taking linebackers and making them fullbacks. When you find one, if you have a fullback offense, you keep them.”

Setting aside the fact that his first statement is an exaggeration, he's still talking about college football and he's pretty clearly saying that pro teams need to develop fullbacks because college football is producing fewer pro-ready fullbacks.

I want to see the Vikings go with the modern flow, a flow which has been in place now for a pretty long time and has established itself. I don't view it as "emphasizing the pass over the run" per se. I view it as "forcing the defense to defend the maximum width and depth of the field that one possibly can by credibly threatening all areas on every snap". The net result of being able to do this consistently gives the offense wide latitude over the particular types of plays it can run and, as you note, does allow them to run quite a bit and do it successfully (and even without overpaying a star RB to do it, too!).

Is that supposed to mean Peterson represents another misallocation of resources"?

I'm not aware of an NFL offense that fits your description above and forces the defense "to defend the maximum width and depth of the field that one possibly can by credibly threatening all areas on every snap". Most of them run formations and plays varied enough that threatening all levels of the field on every play simply isn't possible. technically, any play can break wide open so in that sense, the entire field is always threatened but in terms of actual routes and formations, I don't see a team that's doing what you suggest on every play.

And I think Zimmer's observations as to what college programs are producing in terms of player talent, what salaries RB's are getting in the FA market, along with observations regarding what teams have been successful in the NFL over the last decade or so, lends a lot of credence to the theory that "fullback offenses", which I consider to be offenses predicated around running first, are outmoded and outdated and doomed to failure in a league where fast-strike offenses can pile on points in a hurry. Those types of offenses have been consistently exposed as deficient against opposing teams that can score in a hurry. The Vikes can keep bucking this trend, or admit that they need to be able to do this too and start allocating resources and making personnel decisions that move them in that direction.

Ironically, the current Super Bowl champions run the type of offense you're dismissing as "outmoded and outdated and doomed to failure" and rather than being exposed as "deficient against opposing teams that can score in a hurry", the Seahawks beat one of those teams in the Super Bowl. Seattle ran almost exactly as much as they passed last year. They utilized a fullback. They had a highly-paid star running back with a big cap number. What the Vikes are currently attempting to build could easily look a lot like that team in a year or two if Zimmer can create a powerful defense and if Bridgewater proves to be a find, as Wilson did for Seattle.

It seems like the issue here is that you've created your own definition of "fullback offense" and you're building your argument around that quite possibly inaccurate definition. I believe it's more likely that all Zimmer meant by "fullback offense" was "offense that utilizes a fullback" than that he was trying to espouse an entire "run first" philosophy in those two words.

An offense that utilizes a fullback can still be a quick-striking offense and as I've already attempted to point out, if you take a closer look at the teams that have been playing in the last few conference championship games and Super Bowls (it doesn't get any more modern than that), it's clear that some very successful teams are utilizing fullbacks and putting genuine emphasis on power running. If anything, I think that trend will continue. Over the past decade or so, there's been a greater emphasis on speed than size in the back 7-8 on defense. It's one of the reasons we've seen the rise of tight ends as major weapons. Those big players with size and speed represent mismatches because they're usually going up against smaller defenders. The same concept applies to power running. Defenses aren't being built to stop it and consequently, it's coming back around as a very effective element of offenses. I think the Vikes may be closer to following a trend than bucking one.

Finally, regarding the allocation of resources: as dead_poet pointed out, they've already allocated considerable resources to their passing game and keep in mind that the first round QB they just drafted is their second first round QB in 4 years. They're investing heavily in their passing game and making a clear, determined effort to improve in that department and field a versatile offense.